Wikipedia

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Yajaec

< Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance‎ | Requests

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:


Questions:

edit

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer:Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: At first it seem like it's just disagreement on the info from the manga(comic book) regarding to the character "Saga's" possession. Now it seem like the other user is nick picking all the fact info I've provided even accuse me of manipulating fact to prove that section of article is false. I can and will provide that manga page info if needed (I'm not sure how to go about posting a page of comic on wiki or if that violate any rule?)

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer:I tried posting on the talk page and asking for 3rd party as mediation since the conversation between the other user and I have become heated and I felt resentment from the other user.

problem: Controdiction and conflicts with Other member for Medium with extensive Saint Seiya knowledge and reliable credential on Wikipedia edits


What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer:I would like someone to help or step-in and help resolve this in a civilized manner. I care about the article and for the article to provide correct facts because I've seen a lot of out side source quoting and using Wiki as a reliable source. Along the way I do not wish to create resentment from other user at the end of this issue.

Summary:

edit

In the "Gemini Saga" page under the section of "Saga: Dual Nature or Evil Entity?" It talked about that the Spirit who possessed Saga was possibly Hades's spirit (with no fact source, the only thing talked about in the article later is Shun's possession and the writer is comparing the two event and draws conclusion, I believe that's a POV) There's also a controdiction in the page that says "He(Saga) wanted to take over Sanctuary and gain control of Athena's power to defend the world from the incoming threats of Poseidon and Hades..."

I edited it and user Folken de Fanel revert it, so I tried to talked to user Folken de Fanel that this is a controdiction, if Saga is possessed by Hades' spirit, why would he say he wanted to protect the world from Hades too? Also since user Folken de Fanel displayed knowledge of manga(comic book) I told him about in the manga in the later chapter clearly stated that Hypnos and Thanatos told Pandora that Hades will be born as her brother in spirit form but will not physically be in the world till the Seal of Athena on the Tower of 108 star is broken, until then, Pandora is to protect Hades' spirit. Here clearly shows that the spirit of Hades is with Pandora all these time and not the one with Saga during the same period. (I can and will provide you with that manga page if needed)

User Folken de Fanel kept argue that since both Saga and Shun(whom was chosen to be Hades' physical body on earth) have the same black hair after possession in manga, therefore it's the same spirit (I see this as a POV from him which he denies). And when I provided the manga info stated above, he accused me of changing the wording and makes up facts or Original Research. (If needed, I'm willing to provide that manga page to show that's what it says, maybe not exact to the wording but it's true).

I tried to talk nicely with him but it just seem like user Folken de Fanel just doesn't want to listen or come to a common ground. I told him that if I said anything that offened him, I apologize because I do not wish to create resentment between users.

I can't seem to get through to him, he even reverted my edit twice after I provided the facts. I would need help with getting through user Folken de Fanel. If you have spoted anything that I've done was wrong during the progress, please let me know, I'm willing to correct it for I truely care about the info we provide on Wiki. Thank you.

Discussion:

edit

Hey there, I'm glad to be able to help you out.

Have you considered filing a RfC on this article? By soliciting input from a number of Wikipedians who are familiar with this subject (certainly more so than I), you can help to build a consensus on what should be in the article. You will of course be able to make your point (and I will be able to help you with the more procedural aspects--anime and manga are alien subjects to me, so I won't be able to help you with the substance of your argument), and Folken--should he choose to participate--will be able to make his, and hopefully a consensus--one way or the other--can be reached.

Obviously, if consensus is in favor of Folken then you will need to let the article reflect that unless and until you are able to swing consensus your way--or you may find their arguments convincing. And if consensus is in your favor and Folken continues to refuse to cooperate, we can move on to other measures.

Anyway, I'm going to go eat lunch and then I'll post on Folken's talk page letting him know about this while I continue to familiarize myself with the matter. Hope I can help you work this out! Kurt Weber 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping, I tried to start by requestion other user as 3rd party medium, but it seem like although many people contribute to the article but none seem willing to be involved in this "debate" maybe afraid to be caught up in the "cross fire". I'm not familiar with the RfC but I'll try to look it up and see if any one will respond to this at all. Thank you again.Yajaec 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he just called me Stupid...I'm not sure how I'm going work with this...it's frustrating, I will post a RfC in the Saint Seiya Talk page.Yajaec 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a few comments now that I've had some time to look over this some more:

  1. When you file a RfC, you should also add a link and description of it in the central RfC listing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature; otherwise, others who might have something to add are not likely to find out about it. I'll go ahead and do this for you, but you might want to take a look at it and see if you agree with the summarizations I've made.
  2. I am going to contact Folken to let him know what's going on; I am going to propose that both of you agree to keep your hands off the page until this matter is settled, and as a show of good faith I would like to let him keep the page at his preferred version until then. Are you willing to agree to this?
  3. Folken's threat to give you "proper vandalism warnings" is a bit over the top--just because you added content that he believes is false--even if he's right--does not make it vandalism; for it to be vandalism you would have to be acting in bad faith, which I believe is clearly not the case here. As he's not an admin there's nothing he can do about it; he'd have to get someone else to do it for him, and no sane admin would block you for this. Even if the admin was lazy and didn't bother to check if his allegations had merit, any block placed would be quickly removed once I pointed out the situation. So, you don't have anything to worry about here. I'll make sure to explain this to him as well.
  4. Admittedly, I know next to nothing about anime and manga, but I wonder if what you both are really doing is simply trying to draw conclusions that are not explicitly stated in any source document (whether the anime/manga itself or critical reviews or analyses of it). Remember that, per our NPOV policy, an encyclopedia really should not be doing this. An encyclopedia article should simply report on the current state of research and work on the subject, and leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions. If you or Folken have verifiable sources for either conclusion, then by all means write them into the article--but don't try to present either one as undisputed fact. Remember NPOV--present all the sides of an issue and all the supporting arguments, but let the reader decide for himself which is correct. And if you don't have verifiable sources but are merely posting your own speculations, then they should be yanked out altogether.

A bit of explanation with regards to what I mean by "verifiable sources": Let's say you are arguing over whether Objective Corp. was founded in 1884 or 1892. Neither you nor your opponent should be adding your OWN arguments to the article, even if you have verifiable data backing them up. What I mean by "verifiable sources" is that if you have, say, a scholarly essay written by someone else which claims that Objective Corp. was founded in 1884, and your opponent has one saying it was founded in 1892, then you should note that there is a debate as to its founding and run through the arguments of BOTH sides. But an encyclopedia is not a place to add your OWN arguments for one side or another.

Kurt Weber 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Reply
1. Thanks for adding that for me, I didn't know that area needed to be file too.
2. I have been patient enough to keep myself from starting a reverting war on the page, I don't mind waiting longer.
3. Thank you for stating that, I know he can't do anything like that because through out the talk posting, I have stated clearly of what I'm doing. The only thing that bothers me a bit is that he kept insulting me and making personal attacks and accusations, I wonder if Wiki have admin personal that keep users in check of things like that and faul languges.
4. I have been trying to get the point accross by stating only the fact and trying not to add any additional personal explaination. My previous edit regarding to the spirit of "Ares" is clearly stating that, "it's is often debated amoungst fans" and I did not put statment stating the spirit "IS" Ares, however, Folken kept accuse me of making that claim. Over the past weeks as I become more and more familiar with Wikipedia, I become to understand it need to be kept to the NPOV. I would like the article to be neutural also and I don't mind if Folken stated in article saying in manga, both character have black hair for that IS the fact from manga. However, in current article he adds a sequence of facts to lead readers to his POV of the identity of the spirit. If possible, I would like someone else to rewrite the article in the NPOV way so that neither Folken or I can be involved due to this heated talk, but it seem like so far none of the other user want to be involve or maybe afraid to be caught up in this fire storm.
I do have the manga that stated the facts I talked about and I'm willing to go as far as scan in the page and link it with the section of the article (I'm not sure about the copyright law if it's ok to do such thing for references or maybe just provide only info such as the ISBN# and issue# and pages# which I do have that) but I feel that Folken has resentment toward me, so no matter how I talk to him or how I edit the article to as NPOV as possible, he see it as me manipulating the article to my liking (you can tell from the way he answers to my posting on talk pages). So much frustration, I only hope other users will soon show up and post what they have to say on the issue.
Again, thank you for doing this, as you are not familiar with the subject, I don't care to come out to be the right one or the wrong one, as long as the article reflects what both animation and manga presents.Yajaec 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I'm still not sure you understand what I mean. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to add their OWN arguments as to whether or not X is true--even if they have facts to back them up. An encyclopedia article should simply sum up the arguments made by OTHERS.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and contact Folken after lunch--he's clearly overreacting and assuming bad faith. Hopefully we won't have to elevate this to admin intervention--but if necessary we can. Kurt Weber 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I understand, I guess as the situation started to heat up, it's hard to stay focus as I'm not a very good writer in expressing that NPOV. I understand this isn't the place to argue over subjects nor to say what X is or is not, and I have tried to steer myself back again and again. All I put in the article was what the manga presented and I even put in where in the manga it stated as what it said (nothing to do with what I said, just putting in the info manga presented into the article). Folken accused me of manipulate the wording, so in the light of that accusation, I guess I don't know what else to do but to defend myself thous the debate and arguement arised. Thank you again for pointing that out, that's what I hope is someone to let me know if I made any mistake along the way. I'll have to keep that in mind when encountering such situation in the future.Yajaec 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Yajaec ! That's nice of you to let me expression my views on all this.

Of course, this was ironic, since nobody told me this request and discussion were created, and since nobody offered me a chance to defend my views here.

Here's an objective summary of the problem: Yajaec wants to impose his POV, which is totally wrong and unproved.

The truth is that he doesn't really know the manga we're talking about. When I ask him to provide sources and proofs, he either quotes something totally unrelated, or he modifies the dialogues.

On the other hand, he refuse to listen to me, even if I quote the manga, without alterations, and if I quote various official databooks.

For the last time, the issue is simple : if Yajaec wants to submit his edits, he has first to :

1) Quote the sentence in the manga clearly stating that Hades didn't possess Saga's body
2) Quote the sentence in the manga clearly stating that Ares possessed Saga's body.

Without these 2 elements, I won't let him edit. Until he has fulfilled these 2 requests, his edits are concidered POV violation, and are thus "revertable".

And one last lie from him that I correct : his edits ARE complete POV. He doesn't even say "It has been debated blablabla" but (and I directly quote from his edits) "was it an evil spirit (Ares god of war and chaos' spirit) [...]" and "however it is not the same spirit due to [...]". He doesn't even use conditional, just "is", as if it was the absolute truth ! A "truth" that he is strangely totally unable to prove when I ask him.

Last word : Yajaec, it's useless to ressort to people who don't know Saint Seiya and whom you hope to manipulate by lying to them. You have lost this one. Folken de Fanel 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dude, calm down, I told you many posting ago during my request for mediation that I will go to Admin people for help if I have to. And you can't say that no one give you a chance to share your side because you clearly posted all over the talk page and on the RfC and Kmweber let you know too.
No. Nobody let me know, i'v just checked your contributions and saw this. Remember how you were insistant that I disappeared of Wikipedia while you were explaining to the world how you were the absolute Good and me the absolute evil.

Accuse me all you like, I stated clearly here, I rather have someone else to re-write the article in NPOV way than taking craps from you. As for that quote you said "was it an evil spirit (Ares god of war and chaos' spirit) [...]" You cut off the first part "It is often debated what Saga's evil side truly is: was it an evil spirit (Ares god of war and chaos' spirit)..." It is a true statement as many people and even posting on Wiki talk about this subject. It claimed nothing as far as Ares IS the spirit.

No. As I said elsewhere, I didn't mention the first part because it doesn't apply to your edits. It applies to whether Saga was possessed or was under the influence of his own hidden evil nature. It doesn't apply to who the possessor his.

I only stated in the neutral words on my last edition that it's debated that the spirit could be Ares which is a true statement as you can pull up people's posting regarding the issue. I'm not trying to prove that it IS Ares' spirit, so your accusation does not hold up.

No. Please don't lie anymore. You absolutely never stated it was debated that the soul was Ares. You just said the sould was Ares. Besides, debated or not, that's not the point. This is an officially debunked theory. It absolutely can't be on Wikipedia.

I already told you what Saga said in Manga that he wanted to prevent the world from the taking of Poseidon AND Hades. Which is true from manga. And Hades' spirit was with and under Pandora's protection about 13 years ago which is also true from manga. How dare you accuse me for never read the manga. It's true from manga and I would like the article to reflect this due to what article currently said about Hades' spirit in relation to Saga's possession.

As I said :
1) We don't know Saga's precise motivation, and you have to take into account that Kurumada didn't plan the whole series from the beginning. The scenario has been changed many times to include knew ideas, and the idea to assimilate Saga's possession to Hades didn't came to him before 2 years after the end of the Sanctuary arc.
2) Hades' spriti being under the care of Pandore doesn't prevent him from doing anything. He was free, he could do anything he wanted.
The article will only reflect what is in the manga, not what you wish was in the manga. Unless you provide exact quotation from the manga stating that Hades can not roam the world freely, you won't win.

And finally, how dare you said that I manipulated Kmweber, you are just full of accusation and resentments. Kmweber is not taking sides, he's only here to help with this heated issue between two editors. Wake up dude.Yajaec 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dare because that's the truth. You're lying everywhere, and you really don't need all this discussion because you know you have no proofs. So drop the case. Folken de Fanel 10:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it appears that Folken has decided that he does not have to cooperate with others; he seems to think it is enough for him to simply claim victory and declare ownership over the article (the whole "I will not allow Yajaec to edit..." bit). Yajaec, this in itself is enough to start the dispute resolution process for user conduct, apart from the content dispute that led to it. What do you want to do? Kurt Weber 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that he did made a lot of good article input in the over all Saint Seiya pages shows that he does have good intends but that does not excuse the rude things he said and unwilling to work with others. I just posted a reply stating a possible common ground that will follow the NPOV rule. I told him that we will take out anything in that article that talks about Ares and or Hades' spirit and let readers draw their own conclusions. I hope he can live with that, but if his reply is no then we will go ahead with the user conduct thing which I know nothing about. Let's see what he says to my reply regarding that commond ground and if he says no, then I'll ask your help with the user conduct thing. Thank you for your help, I know this thing between editors gets heated and ugly, I sincerely appreciate you helping us out.Yajaec 17:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He made some re-editing on the article, it still does not reflect the common ground of NPOV. I asked him again to take out those addition facts that would lead readers in other direction, if he does not comply, then I will ask your help with the user conduct thing.Yajaec 18:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does reflect the common ground of NPOV. NPOV is stating everything, and not favoring or disadvantaging one interpretation by the omission of certain facts.
I won't take anything out because everything I've added is in the manga. Folken de Fanel 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in the last talk posting under #31 Yajaec's Edit section [page] he made more accussation and threat, so it tells me that he's unwilling to work with me in coming to a common ground, I hate to do this but now I'm asking you to help me on getting that User conduct setup. Thank youYajaec 21:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yajaec is lying. He is accusing me of "threatening" him, which is completely false. On the other hand, he is accusing me because I state fatcs he doesn't like. He is a POV-addict.
Iy's you who are unwilling to work with me in coming to a common ground. The common ground is the manga, not what you think about it. Folken de Fanel 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will present this case to the officials and let them decide, the article is not about only what fact that YOU think should be put in, thus creates Fact A + Fact B and steer reader into your additional hint of speculated Fact C. And upon reviews, official will see clearly who's making rude comments and accussation and even threats, enough said, officals can see for themselves.Yajaec 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This case has already been closed. Perfect NPOV has been reached and you can't do anything against that.
This article isn't either about what fact YOU Yajaec think shouldn't be put in, thus creates Fact A + ??? and preventing readers from knowing everything there is to know on the subject.
Accuse me once more of adding speculations without proof, and you'll be warned and Wikipedia officials will take care of you.
I repeat once more, you won't find any speculation in the article, I'm merely stating facts.
And please, continue to make false accusations against me. It's the best way for you to get warned by wikipedia officials.
Show me the so-called "threats" your talking about, I'm very curious. Folken de Fanel 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pointless to keep argue, it's in the official's hands now.Yajaec 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you keep argueing ? Are you trying to prevent me to speak ?
I can see you're still eluding the question of proving your accusations against me. And it's not in the hands of "officials", as I've explained, but in the hand of contributors, as always. Folken de Fanel 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup:

edit

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:


AMA Information

edit

Case Status: open


Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/November_2006/Yajaec&oldid=1137460267"